Why you shouldn't vote for John Kerry

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by kartaron, Oct 21, 2004.

  1. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    I disagree about how much mud was slung and how much clinton put on himself. Clinton was accused of rape (and a lot of other things). Congress had a responsibility to act. The conviction had bipartisan support. The democrats just make accusations in the hope that they stick. The only reason they make the accusations at all is because Kerry is indefensible.

    Have any of their charges been proven true?

    Blood for Oil? Nope
    Draft? Nope
    Burn Churches? Nope
    Ban Abortion? Nope

    The most controversial thing he has done, domestically, is introduce the idea of a marriage ammendment, which is supported, in principal, by 80% of America.

    In fact he hasnt vetoed anything, even what the dems passed when they controlled the Senate. He has gone out of his way to negotiate a comprimise with the democrats, without violating his principals, on every issue but never gets credit for it.

    But why am I defending Bush again? Why dont you defend Kerry?
     
  2. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nope
    Connections between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein? Nope
    Reduction of National Debt? Nope
    Warfare by Genevese convention? Nope

    You said the magic word there... Domestically. But America is THE country that shouldn't look at domestic issues alone. After all, it still is the most powerfull nation in the world. Messing up internationally has major impact for the entire world...

    What can I say in Kerry's defence... He's not Bush. Bush made so many mistakes that he is not credible anymore as President of the most powerfull nation in the world. Any of the reasons given above would be enough in other countries to impeach the President. But that won't happen in America. Luckely, America IS a democracy, so you can have a say in these kind of things. I'd say, time for someone else. And since Kerry hasn't stated he would like to turn America into a Dictatorship, or do anything that could be conceived as drastically wrong... I'd say Vote Kerry. And I would like all of America (or at least half of it) to vote Nader... But he's not a solution. In fact, his is the largest nail to Kerry's coffin. So let's not vote Nader for a change... And if Kerry also messes up, you can still vote yet another President after his term has ended.
     
  3. Arijah

    Arijah The Firstborn

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Mr. Kerry once said that our American troops should be under the direction of the UN...he took some severe flak for that, and then tried to cover it up with the "global test" comment during the 1st debate. Sure, it's not dictatorship, but no commission of countries with their private agendas should have to approve or disapprove to the point of allowing or disallowing America the ability to protect our own interests or the sovereignty of another country. Let's not forget that we are the only nation in recent history who takes it upon themselves to rebuild the nation(s) in which we warred against as an act of goodwill and peace and did not take it upon ourselves to be their governor but rather to facilitate their reconstruction within the realms of democracy.

    Ummm...mistakes? This isn't to say Bush has been without mistake, but let's get one thing clear. Bush makes decisions based on information from the CIA, and the intelligence offices of other nations...(as if this couldn't be Kerry's global test) MI-5 said WMD exists...Russian Intelligence said WMD exists...1,000,000 Kurd victims of Saddam's genocidal tirade by way of chemical weapons said WMD exists or existed, and regardless Saddam would not hesitate to use them. It irks me that people can't see past their dislike of somebody, and not look straight at the fact the info provided to our President was inaccurate. If anything, the CIA and other intelligence offices should be getting the flak we throw at the President.

    If you want mistakes that destroy credibility...listen to this

    http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com

    Based on that information alone, I cannot bring myself to fault the President for doing what he felt was right and necessary, nor can I bring myself to use that as a reason for wanting someone new in office. Saddam had to go period...John Kerry said that too...

    Now for Kartaron's sole point in starting this thread....Kerry is not the best candidate. Bush is the best candidate. Are there things we don't like about Bush or Kerry? Most definitlely yes, but when you take the grand scale and look at it...Bush is the better suited candidate that the ballot has to offer.

    Kartaron, I applaud your objectivity.

    In the same way you might call me an irresponsible voter for wanting to have Bush re-elected, the same irresponsiblity, dare I say reckless, goes back to your comment about how "And if Kerry also messes up, you can still vote yet another President after his term has ended."

    I'd rather take my chances with a proven leader who stutters than a politically self-serving Senator from Massachusets who will say anything to get elected.
     
  4. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Listen, I would like to go and debate all the points presented here. But I am not. Apart from this exam I have to do tomorrow, I realise that my point isn't taken. My task is done here, I will go back to the origin, why Bush shouldn't be Pres. for 4 more years. After all, that still is the best reason to vote Kerry. History in the future will proof my point, either way, I fear. Good luck with flaming Kerry
     
  5. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    What a horrible plan for America - Kerry wins by default?

    Kartaron, I commend you for your careful analysis and posting - great information!



    BTW did everyone hear about the latest blunder of Mrs. Heinz-Kerry (scary lady) - she blasted the first lady for never having a real job in her life. Apparently this dimwit forgot that Mrs. Bush was a school teacher and a librarian for many years; and for the Heinz heir to start attacking those who haven't had to work for what they have? That is the height of stupidity!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No wonder Kerry didn't say anything nice about his wife in the final debate, only that he "married up."
     
  6. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Some found, including blister agents, but no stockpiles. However proof has been found of Saddam trying to reinstate his nuclear program including funding allocation. Are nukes WMD's?

    Also incorrect. 9/11 Report specifically mentions the times Bin Laden met with Saddam and the intentional housing of Al-Quaeda militants. or perhaps you mean Saddam and 9/11?

    America needed a stronger economy before we can even think about reducing our Nation Debt. President Bush provided that economy. In fact Bush has had recent support of a Noble Peace prize economist who said if anything Bush's tax cuts weren't deep enough, but they did wonders for stifling the bad economy we inherited from Bill Clinton.

    Let's see something that you can back up with this, something not bridled in personal opinion.

    Worst logic i have heard in a while. Anybody BUT Bush. That means anybody, a hobo, Hitler, anybody. Without a viable plan to fix what is wrong, there is no viable option. Kerry would make things worse in the war on terror because I have every intention to believe he will just call it off, apologize to whoever was involved, and then let America go about its business. I will not vote for Kerry because i believe he WILL mess things up, so why vote for him when I believe that?

    BTW Kart, excellent and LONG posts there. Only thing I would have expounded more on was Senator edwards claim that "the lame will walk again!" dear God, sounds more like a looney televangelist. "The blind will see under Kerry! The deaf will hear again! vote John Kerry for Jesus!"
     
  7. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    Thanks.

    Im not even pretending that my rants are comprehensive... I left out a lot of information just because it took so much space to explain. If I can find time I will post another about how the foreign media, and international versions of american media, distort the truth to influence our allies. Unfortunately, that particular topic is difficult to get sources on because of the lack of self observation in foreign media discussions.

    The willingness to overlook the overwhelming evidence that Kerry isn't suited to the office shows that their hatred is blinding them. I wasn't going to argue with Turambar about Bush anymore but since you handled most of it... here is a last comment:

    About the Geneva convention... Agressors that act as spies or combatants

    Clearly, the terrorists we fight do not adhere to a number of these requirements, and so the conventions do not apply to them. But lets pretend they do....

    Seeing as the US investigated (well before the press released the photos) and just recently issued convictions including extended prison sentences for the Abu Graihb participants, which side is following the convention and which is not?

    Between the support for the world court and the doctrine of perfection in warfare I wonder what happens the next time canada gets involved in a war? If one of your soldiers accidentally shoots an unarmed terrorist, The Un will capture him, a Syrian judge will convict him and sentence him to burn at the stake ( or whatever heinous method of execution they use lately). Or do these rules only apply to the US because they are the most powerful?
     
  8. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Upon popular demand...

    That's because the guys fall under act 1... Militia?

    Both sides should abide by the rules. One side not following the rules isn't a reason to give up these rules all together.

    First of all, I am not canadian. You could have known that, studying the coordinates, stated as my loction. It says EAST. I am from the Netherlands...

    Then, we have troops in Iraq. And there was one(!) shooting accident involving a Dutch Soldier (he shot an Iraqi plunderer). He was taken prison by military police and put to trial in The Netherlands for manslaughter...

    Is it just me, or can I recall a UN delegation looking for WMD, didn't find them and asking the US to delay war? Wasn't the CIA sure at that time that there were WMD, with prove and all... Being falsified? Now surely, that shouldn't have been a reason to go into open war with Iraq.

    I think we can all agree that the relation between the two was insignificant. Yet again a false reason to go into open war agains Iraq.

    We discussed this point and we still don't agree. I am not going to take up this old arguement.

    There have been plenty of opportunities to clean Iraq from the moment of the Chem. weapons agains the kurds.

    I think the MOST DANGEROUS thing to do is attack a Dictator in distress, with WMD at his disposal. Maybe these weapons couldn't reach the US (I really doubt if they ever could, without help from the Russians, the Chinese or the Israeli). Maybe he could have reached Israel (had done that before), Italy... Germany, England at the most. But Millions could have died that way. And all it would have required was one push of a button. You could call this a reason to go to war... I call it a reason to be VERY, extremely carefull.

    ...

    But anyway, I will take sepcify the discussion now a bit. The Abu Ghraib incidents. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the President autmatically Comander-In-Chief of all armed forces? And with that directly responsible for the whole Abu Ghraib story, both military AND politcal? What is that guy still doing in office?
     
  9. Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Art House Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,101
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +137 / 0 / -0
    Kerrys a liberal wiener!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The voice of reason from a 14 year old, Indy we will see you in 4 years; keep up that spirit!
     
  11. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    I re-read this:
    Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    The definition of modern terrorism is that they are not directly aligned with a political figure. This is why Arafat can claim innocence in the halls of the UN. Or are you saying that the political figures that indirectly support terrorism are military leaders in the war and can be targeted? You cant have it both ways.

    What have you got besides Abu Ghraib?



    Sorry about the mixup, Your example helps prove my argument. The existing justice systems work. I dont trust a UN court.

    Blix said he couldnt find them because Saddam wouldnt let him search the bunkers. In testimony to the Chirac in early 2003 he admitted that the invading armies would definately find the WMD's. We have evidence of truckloads of equipment being moved out of Iraq and into Syria. We could have stopped that movement if the UN hadnt pressured Turkey into denying access, or if the UN hadnt buckled to bribery. Is this information convincing, solid and completely ignored? Yes.

    Except for the fact that he DID support terrorists, both with direct payments, equipment, free access, medical care and propaganda.

    But the Bush lied argument is fresh and new.

    12 of them, all supported by the UN.

    Thats what patriot missiles and B2 Stealth Bombers are for.

    Look, even the republicans didn't try to blame Clinton for the convoy of farmers that were bombed in Kosovo. That is the doctrine of the perfect war that I mentioned earlier.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2004
  12. Lady_of_Shalott

    Lady_of_Shalott Weaving the Magic Web

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    8,237
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Ratings:
    +63 / 0 / -0
    I think this one says it all. All others reasons aside, I cannot believe anyone would vote for a man for president who says this. I don't even know how anyone could vote for him for Congress. I mean really, it's only worth it if an American soldier dies under the flag of the UN? This is beyond scary.
     
  13. Wisconsin

    Wisconsin Art House Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,101
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +137 / 0 / -0
    hehehe!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Galadriel

    Galadriel True Heir

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Underworld
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    I personally think the guy is boring and that now George Bush is doing alright. It are all these promisses Kerry makes and do they come true? No.
     
  15. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    I am sure that if I look hard enough, I could find a Bush quote stating that Al Quaeda is a well organised (military?) structure. Al-Zarqawi, or however that bloke may be called is the militia leader at the moment, whether or not linked to Al Quaeda. I think you try to define your way around the Geneva convention... why? do you think we should get rid of them? and what about general human rights? What about "we are going to make Iraq a better place"?

    Besides, I can't remember England beating the hell out of the terrorists they had, back in the Northern Ireland issue... There is absolutely no way of making anyone believe that what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison was all right.

    Either that, or it is propaganda. I don't really believe anything anymore coming from US inteligence, they lost truckloads of their credibility.

    The national debt fee has been spoken about, and either you or Legend couldn't agree with me about the future economical impact and political impact of lowering taxes in combination with a drastic increase of National Debt. So, I won't take up the arguement again.

    "Bush lies" is so broad, and I haven't been in all the discussions surrounding this.

    The system works IN THE NETHERLANDS. I know that some of the Abu people were convicted. They would never have been, if it wasn't for all those pics send to the media. Now, I don't think we heared all about what's happening in Iraq. You know perfectly well what happened for instnace in Vietnam. For those cases, I would pleed for an international tribunal, where victims can ask for a trial. Luckily, that exists, indeed, in The Hague.

    Ah, really... Come on, you wouldn't suggest that these distance weapons are sufficient to knock out all WMD in a single blow. Even if you could, you're not even alowed to assume that you miss a substantial part, or even a single missile. Risk reduction, maybe. Problem solved.... ABSOLUTELY NOT.

    I can't recall that that action was deliberate. I can't imagine you can compare the two, or would you suggest those people were tortured by accident?

    Yeah, but it proves my point, the entire US is interested in politics all of the sudden... or something ;)
     
  16. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    How is Bush responsible for that when he is over here in the States and the whole incident happens half a world away? It looked bad for Bush, but people have gotten over it because it was only 7 soldiers out of several hundred thousand.
     
  17. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    I never said that Gharib was a good thing. Im defending the way we treat prisoners as a general rule. Technically, since they are not standard soldiers the geneva convention doesnt apply to them, but we treat them respectfully despite that (Abu Gharib aside). Oh and the brits had Bloody Sunday. The french had the battle of Algiers.

    Which Im fine with, like I said before.

    Their torture wasn't the intent of the government. I assume your country has free elections. So, if you are a supporter of your government, is it your fault that your military had a policy that allowed an atrocity to happen? Do you support the overthrow of your government because your president (or PM or whatever) didnt catch it in time?

    Increased interest on both sides... In the first presidential election after the first attack on our home soil since 1941. An attack that killed 3000 people and happened on live television.

    War cannot be waged without risk to innocents unless both sides expose themselves and fight in unoccupied areas. The fact is (and I cant imagine you are ignorant to it) that terrorists make sneak pinpoint attacks using the guise of civilians. They target anything that gets them attention. It doesnt matter if the target is a non participant o not. Then they surround themselves with civilians to prevent retaliation. Now, there is some argument about whether the civilians who participate in hiding the terrorists are true non participants or are simply another part of the machine. The difference between them and us is that we target the agressors and occasionally, without intent, happen to hurt or kill non participants (or assumed non participants). They target innocents and non participants. There is no moral equality.

    Look at that CARE international lady who just got kidnapped. She has been living there for 30 years. She is married to a muslim Iraqi. Im sure that the terrorists know this information. They attacked her because she was a convenient target and the British press likes to write impassioned pleas about how Blair is a villain for not withdrawing the troops to save her life.

    The UN has had a policy of see no evil when it comes to terrorism. A significant number of member nations support terrorism. They have never issued a condemnation of attacks on Israel (although condemnations of Israel come in multitudes). European nations appease terrorists by submitting to their demands. Everybody loved America as the victims. When we actually did something besides complaining and acquiescing everybody got all shocked. Clearly europe thought that the best thing to do was submit to Bin Ladin, withdraw our troops, lock the doors and blame Israel. So since they werent happy about it they went and collected protection money from a terrorist supporting nation. I understand why most european nations dislike our agressive posture. However, killing terrorists and destroying terrorism is more important for our safety than their happiness.
     
  18. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    13) The Foreign press is biased and so the people of foreign nations do not understand our cause.

    The Guardian yesterday ran up the white flag and called a halt to “Operation Clark County”, the newspaper’s ambitious scheme to recruit thousands of readers to persuade American voters in a swing state to kick out President George W Bush in next month’s election.

    The cancellation of the project came 24 hours after the first of some 14,000 letters from Guardian readers began arriving in Clark County. The missives led to widespread complaints about foreign interference in a US election.

    It also prompted a surge of indignant local voters calling the county’s Republican party offering to volunteer for Mr Bush.

    The paper said it had closed the website where readers collected an address to write to and had abandoned plans to take four “winners” to visit voters in Clark County. Instead, the group would be taken to the “more tranquil” area of Washington.

    Albert Scardino, the paper’s executive editor for news, simultaneously denied and conceded that an early halt had been called to the project. “It is roaringly, successfully completed. It has been an overwhelming triumph,” he said.

    He then acknowledged that no more addresses were being distributed, blaming attacks on The Guardian website by Right-wing hackers.

    “If we had not had the technical problem of the assault we would have completed the distribution of names in orderly fashion,” he said. “We were able to give fewer addresses [of voters in Clark County] than we hoped. There were 14,000 names and addresses sent out. We would like to have made it possible to reach another 42,000 people.”

    The scheme seemed to backfired from the start as the reactions of the first recipients varied from indifference to anger and even alarm. ...

    There had been mounting evidence that urging foreigners to send anti-Bush letters to Clark County - an isolated slice of the rural mid-West - was only hurting Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.

    -----------------

    This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn the Chechan assault in Russia. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace. But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

    The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which comprises fifty-six of the UN’s 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.

    After the Security Council vote, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it “states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never.”

    But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any UN resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council.

    ----------------

    Here’s the latest blatantly false headline from the Associated Press, as they claim that Iran has “endorsed” George W. Bush: Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran.

    Notice, however, that the actual quotes from Iranian official Hasan Rowhani do not contain an endorsement at all, just a statement that they don’t want Democrats to take over:

    But as this AFP release at Turkish News shows, the Associated Press deliberately omitted a key portion of Hasan Rowhani’s statements that make it clear Iran does not endorse Bush at all: Kerry or Bush, makes no difference to us: Iran.

    ----------------

    Agence France Presse pines for the days when they could easily raise a big scare over civil rights: War on terror drowns out talk of rights in US campaign.

    And to back up their case that the government’s “vast unchecked powers” are leading the US inexorably toward totalitarianism under the evil Bushitler, the French news wire interviews none other than “civil liberties advocate” Mahdi Bray, director of the Muslim American Society and former political adviser to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, whining as always about the oppression of it all:

    No doubt it would be tres gauche to suggest that Mahdi Bray may need to worry about “flying while Muslim” because of his support for Hamas and Hizballah and his association with Abdurahman Alamoudi (who was sentenced to 23 years in prison last week).

    -----------------

    A Russian Newspaper says Bush's America is a 'rogue state'.

    Putin puts Bush into a rogue gallery of foreign political leaders whom Russia supports, including Belarussian strongman Alexander Lukashenko and convicted felon and Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

    At first sight, it seems clear why Moscow should back that unsavory twosome. Keeping the two Slavic ex-Soviet republics on a tight leash is integral to the revival of Russia's imperial ambitions under Putin. It seems far less obvious what Russia hopes to gain from Bush's re-election.

    First and foremost, Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq stirred trouble in a volatile, unstable region and driving oil prices to record levels. In addition, Washington's single-minded concentration on the war on terror in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a unique opportunity for Moscow to find a multilateral solution to its festering separatist war in Chechnya. Finally, by straining the United States' relations with its allies in Western Europe, Bush's White House raised fears in Paris and Berlin that America could turn into a rogue nation, driving them closer to Moscow.

    From Putin's comments:

    “We unconditionally respect any choice of the American people,” he said. “I don’t want to spoil relations with either candidate.”

    ------------------

    John Kerry must stop ducking chances to attack Bush on Iraq, says Philip James from the Guardian

    Friday October 22, 2004

    The news last week that US troops had refused to follow orders in Iraq was a stunning development, the first time anything like this has happened since Vietnam. It led the network news last Friday night and underlined the reckless folly of America's unilateral adventure there.

    How can you have faith in a commander-in-chief who claims we are on the right track in Iraq, when the troops on the ground are bailing on the mission, not out of rebelliousness but because of legitimate concerns for their own safety?

    Breaking two weeks before election day, the story was a campaign gift for John Kerry, as he tries to unseat a wartime president based on the argument that he is just not up to the job.

    But Kerry did not say word one about the incident. The risk-averse contender for the White House was worried that he might be accused of supporting insubordination. Kerry didn't see an opportunity; he saw a hand grenade with the pin taken out. There was no way he was going to let it blow up in his face.

    Handled right, of course, the story could have framed a powerful indictment against Bush. Yet Kerry would not comment on the story. Like his "too little too late" reaction to the Swift boat attack and his kid glove approach to the Abu Ghraib scandal, Kerry was again swayed by an inner voice that says: "Don't risk it." His fear of possibly scoring an own goal outweighed his instinct for the open goal. And it's a shame, because it could so easily have been different.

    ------------------

    Now that the Guardian’s attempt to influence our election has been a miserable failure, they’ve moved on—to advocating assassination:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,1333748,00.html

    -------------------

    John Kerry's vietnam legacy

    http://www.buttondepress.com/BostonManifesto/stolenhonor.wmv

    ------------------

    As a side note:

    Does anyone not think this is a reason for a first strike?

    In a press release in Arabic on its official web, Hamas leaders said: “Hamas is condemning the U.S vote and stating that Hamas considers the U.S as an enemy and as an accomplice to the Israeli enemy aggression against the Palestinians. Hamas regards the U.S position as a criminal act that puts her in a confrontation with ”weak“ nations. The U.S will face responsibility for its position as an accomplice with Israel to the animosity.”

    Why havent these guys and Arafat been incinerated by a MOAB? Oh, because the UN supports their cause. What is their cause? "God willing, this unjust state Israel will be erased; this unjust state the United States will be erased; this unjust state Britain will be erased." June, Palestinian television, Ibrahim Madi.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2004
  19. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Lack of vaccines is Bush's fault? Well...


    1994: Congress amends Social Security Act to impose price caps on Federal vaccine contracts. Government becomes purchaser and distributor of 40% of vaccines.
    1996: Watered-down tort reform legislation fails to stem tide of vaccine-related lawsuits.
    1998: Manufactures of tetanus and diphtheria vaccines refuse to bid on government contracts and these vaccines become widely unavailable.
    2001: Unprecedented shortages of pertussis, pneumococcal infection, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines occurs.
    2002: Vaccine Availability Act increases Government purchasing to almost 70% of the market. Vaccine tort reform dropped from Homeland Security Act. Shortages continue.
    2003: Attempt to amend tort reforms to Vaccine Availabilithy Act fails. All but two American manufactures have stopped producing vaccines.
    2004: Contamination problem at foreign manufacturer cuts influenza supply if half. Rationing imposed.


    So... thanks to decisions made during the Clinton admnistration we have the problems we have today. Same with the economy, and in many ways same with terrorism when Clinton was several times offered Bin Laden by the Saudis but Clinton claimed there was no reason to act.
     
  20. LOTR Fan

    LOTR Fan Universals v. Particulars

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Not to mention in addition to what Justice has just said the Surgeon General has just declared that normally they throw away millions of flu vaccines each year - we will likely have almost enough vaccines; it is just with the announcement of a shortage that the hysteria begins! Could this be because we are in an election??? NAH!!!!